Letters to the editor, Huntsville Times, Saturday Feb. 26

While it is clear that there are racial differences among the Huntsville schools in the areas of student accomplishments, discipline, etc., it is not so clear that race is the primary reason.

I would like to see a statistical breakdown of the differences in family income, the incidence of single-mother families, and perhaps other cultural or societal characteristics.

These may be more important even if they are correlated to race.

William Henze Jr

Huntsville, 35802

Accuracy in facts

The source of Mr. Melvin Yates' letter (Times, Feb 18) taking issue with the "Obama Health Care bill" is another of those erroneous political e-mails making the rounds these days. It's from a Nov. 2009 letter supposedly by a Dr. Steven Fraser, Indianapolis, and/or Judge David Kithil, Marble Falls, TX.

One or both apparently copied it from another circulated in mid-2009, author unknown. It refers to some of the provisions of HR 3200 which is an older House version of the Health Care Reform Bill.

If Mr. Yates had done more than just repeat the email's assertions, for example had he actually reviewed the final bill (HR4872), all of it's amendments and the law (PL 111-152), he would have found that his charges are completely untrue.

When a letter such as Mr. Yates' is submitted to The Times, it would be a service to check it for accuracy, print the letter and follow that with the results of their research.

And I would welcome The Times checking my assertions as well. If I'm wrong, I want to know about it. We Americans are blessed with a wonderful democratic form of government in which we all have a voice. However, if we're fed a stream of lies, our elected legislators' support of honest and good legislation is in jeopardy. We must not put politics above nation. The stakes are way too high.

Victor L. van Leeuwen

Madison, 35758

Keep promises

Promises made should become promises kept.

In September of last year in A Pledge to America, the GOP promised to cut FY 2011 spending by at least $100 billion. Early Saturday morning the U.S. House passed a bill to reduce spending by $61 billion from the actual FY 2010 spending level.

This is a good start, but it does not complete the promise.

Some would quibble that the president's FY 2011 budget request is the appropriate baseline for measuring the promise. This is silly because the budget request made in Feb. 2010 was long dead when the GOP made its promise in September, and as we all know the last Congress did not even pass a budget.

The opportunity for the GOP Congress to cut spending is presented merely because FY 2011 spending has been authorized only by the continuing resolution which expires early next month. Such quibbles should be rejected by straight-talking Republicans.

Our congressman,

Mo Brooks, and his colleagues have made a promise and should turn it into a promise kept.

Thomas J. Scovill

Madison, 35758-1368

School money needed

Way back in the dark ages (1959 or 1960), my family attended a school meeting in which budget deficits and suggested remedies were being discussed. There just wasn't enough money to fund the entire day at school, so the school board proposed to cut the day shorter by doing away with the morning and afternoon recesses. My father asked the principal if he was a veteran and if the principal had gotten a 10-minute break for every hour of training when he was in the military, and the principal replied that he had.

Then my father asked the principal how he expected 7- and 8-year-old kids to endure an entire day without a break, and the topic of recesses was forever dismissed. My father had saved recesses for the kids. The point is that 51 years ago the school system was begging for more money and using the kids to get it, and that hasn't changed a bit.

The school board and school system administrator have been using someone else's money for decades. When they're broke they just get an increase in sales taxes and/or increase in property taxes to cover it. They get paid regardless of their performance and, they lack the determination to say "no" (like any responsible parent must do) and mean it. They also have the ultimate "guilt weapon" in the "it's for your kids" explanation, for those sufficiently shallow or short-sighted to believe it.

Robert L. Johnstone

Huntsville, 35803

Bible interpretations

Like many people who rely only on the Bible for their information, Mr.

Frank Walton appears to be confounded by its frequent contradictions.

In his Feb. 19 letter ("Bible Teachings"), he excoriates homosexuals, using many of the Biblical hate terms all religions seem to use ("unnatural", "fornication", "immoral", - even bestiality gets mentioned), then states unequivocally that "God loves us as we are, but He loves us too much to leave us in any sin."

Last time I looked, most if not all homosexuals remain that way all their lives. So Mr. Walton apparently has a dilemma. Either: (1) God doesn't love us as much as the Bible says He does (since He "leaves us in sin"), or (2) God does indeed love us, and He doesn't consider homosexuality to be a sin.

Preferring a loving God to a spiteful one, I choose option No. 2. No dilemma here.

Lawrence J. Casey

Huntsville, 35820

Sing as written

I completely agree with the letter of Sunday Feb. 13 by Joe L. Fields about the National Anthem.

I would like to add any music, secular or spiritual.

As a young man, I sang with the John Howard Tucker course in Cleveland.

In a rehearsal, Mr. Tucker stopped me while I was singing (stylealizing) a song originally sung by Eddie Fisher. "Jerry, IF you wish to "stylealize" then write your own song. If singing a song written by someone else, then sing it as written," Tucker told me.

How true.

It is highly improper for any singer, song director or song leader to change the words, notes or timing to a song (secular or spiritual) or the National Anthem.

To change the National Anthem is unpatriotic.

To change a secular song, it changes the original meaning.

To change a spiritual song, it takes one's mind off the worship and onto mechanics.

Jerry C. Smiley

Huntsville, 35801

Wisconsin union facts

Two points not being clearly reported about Wisconsin:

(1) Wisconsin is not a "right to work" state. What does this mean? Compelled unionization.

All employees at a given site must pay dues/participate in the union (even if they don't want to - else they can get fired). And the incumbent union gets to represent all employees to the exclusion of other possible unions ( listen to the Feb. 17 Mark Nix interview at http://www.nrtw.org ).

(2) What does this mean for taxpayers? That union "dues" are *mandatory* extracts from worker paychecks. Therefore, this transitively makes taxpayers "mandated" to financially support the unions. Incidentally, only union members should "electively" support unions - not the taxpayers through mandate.

And since it is the union's job to bargain against the government to "get the best deal" for the workers, this means that we have "taxation with the opposite of representation."

If the unions are "all that" in terms of their importance to their constituency, then no harm will come to these organizations by switching their membership and renumeration status from mandatory to optional. Unfortunately for Trumpka's political money warchest, money collected likely will be reduced if the bill passes because the big labor bosses want this more for their members, than the members want it for themselves.

Enough of the games.

F Christopher Pizzano

Huntsville, 35802

Drug testing

I suggest the Huntsville city school district drug test every employee as it's first step in cutting personnel. Those who fail are out. Only then can we really begin cleaning up our school system.